771731

research-article2018
MSX0010.1177/1029864918771731Musicae ScientiaeMornell et al.

Research Report

Musicae Scientiae

Evaluating practice strategies,

1­–6
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
behavior and learning progress sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1029864918771731
https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864918771731
in elite performers: journals.sagepub.com/home/msx

An exploratory study

Adina Mornell
University of Music and Performing Arts Munich, Germany

Margaret S. Osborne
The University of Melbourne, Australia

Gary E. McPherson
The University of Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Typical musicians devote most of their time to blocks of physical practice and mistake-avoidance,
as opposed to mental preparation, desirable difficulties, and strategies that strengthen self-efficacy
and autonomy. For this reason, teachers try to steer students away from mindless drill and towards
self-regulated learning strategies. Yet, both the scientific and pedagogical literature lack guidelines
for developing musicians that are supported by empirical research. This exploratory study with 14
musicians was designed to capture what they planned to practice, as well as what they actually did in
the practice room, in order to assess the level of repetition and innovation intended and carried out. A
questionnaire captured the musician’s self-reported intentions (cognitions), behavior, and emotions
during practice. The questionnaire accompanied a self-recorded video of a practice session of the
participant’s choice. Evaluation of the questionnaire and videos provided evidence that participant’s
own ratings of the effectiveness of their practice supported their belief in the importance of repetition.
The evaluation scores of these students’ practice sessions by two independent raters, in contrast,
indicated that varied strategies were more beneficial with regard to individual progress than habitual
repetition.

Keywords
autonomy, deliberate practice, learning strategies, motivation, musical development, practice strategies,
self-efficacy, self-regulated learning

Corresponding author:
Adina Mornell, University of Music and Performing Arts Munich, Institute IV, Arcisstr. 12, Munich, 80333, Germany.
Email: adina.mornell@hmtm.de
2 Musicae Scientiae 00(0)

An increasing body of research in both music and sports psychology indicates that repetitive,
habitual and mindless practice often leads to sub-optimal preparation and performance
(Schmidt & Lee, 2011; Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). In contrast, preparation for public perfor-
mance can be enhanced when musicians focus their efforts on deliberate practice (Mornell,
2009; Papageorgi & Kopiez, 2012; Platz, Kopiez, Lehmann, & Wolf, 2014). Learning can be
more efficient when strategies include desirable difficulties (Bjork & Bjork, 2014). Musicians
can become more deeply involved and intrinsically motivated to succeed, when they are self-
motivated (McPherson & Zimmermann, 2011), and adopt a growth mindset (Dweck, 2008).
Despite research evidence, many developing musicians are resistant to change when it comes
to traditions and rituals such as rote practice (Abushanab & Bishara, 2013; Simon & Bjork,
2001; Yan, Thai, & Bjork, 2014). Automation of musicians’ motor patterns is believed to facili-
tate error-free performances, but the training of self-motivated, flexible and creative artists
involves more complex strategies. Repetition and inattention can actually degrade motor learn-
ing pathways instead of improving them (“Penelope Effect”, see Altenmüller, 2006).
The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a practice protocol based on the three-
phase self-regulated learning framework (McPherson & Zimmermann, 2011; see also
McPherson, Osborne, Evans & Miksza, 2017). We sought to gain initial evidence of the
effectiveness of the protocol to encourage musicians to disengage from habitual mindless
practice, and instead adopt a strategic and challenging approach characterized first by focus
and planning (“forethought”), then appraisal of what had been achieved during practice
(“performance”), and finishing with an assessment of the difficulty of applying this strategy
and their motivation to use it in the future (“self-reflection”). We sought to explore the use-
fulness of this preliminary protocol, and to use the information gained from this study as the
basis for designing a more robust approach that could be applied with subsequent samples
of musicians.

Method
Participants
Fourteen musicians – faculty, alumni, and current students in music degree programs at a
prominent European music school – were recruited via calls for volunteers that were posted on
notice boards, provided to students enrolled in a class on practice techniques, and emailed to
faculty members who had expressed interest in research projects. Ten female (71.4%) and four
male (28.6%) musicians responded to invitations to participate in the study. The mean age of
the sample was 26.88 years (SD = 7.41) and the number of years playing an instrument was
18.86 years (SD = 7.60). There were three pianists, two flutists, and one each of the following
instruments: accordion, cello, hammer dulcimer, guitar, harp, marimba, organ, (classical) sax-
ophone, and violin. Because the researchers were from two different countries (Germany and
Australia), ethics clearance was sought and granted at both institutions’ ethics review boards.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Materials and procedure

Each participant received written instructions in a three-part document called “Self-Regulated
Practice Strategies of University Musicians.”1 Part 1 contained three questions (1–3) to be com-
pleted prior to the videotaping of an excerpt of a practice session for the study. Question 1 asked
participants to mark the focus of the session somewhere on a continuum between “specific” and
Mornell et al. 3

“general,” on a second continuum between “technical issue” and “musical issue,” and to use
their own words to describe the focus of the session. Question 2 asked them to identify the focus
of the practice session using a circle of options. Here they could mark any number of the follow-
ing terms: accuracy, fluency, musical expression, technical control, and quality of sound, as well
as “other, please explain” which had a line for free text. These suggestions for practice focus were
derived both from the authors’ teaching experience and from the validated “Music Performance
Rating Scale” of Wrigley and Emmerson (2011). Question 3 asked the musicians to mark how
they had chosen their strategy, with multiple answers possible. Here the options were: modifica-
tion of existing strategy, observation of others (teachers, colleagues etc.), chance/coincidence,
sudden insight/ brainstorming and other/please explain.
In Part 2, each participant chose the location and time of the practice session filmed, thus
mirroring normal rehearsal as much as possible. Participants were instructed to record a prac-
tice unit and label it with a code word of their choice before proceeding to Part 3. There were no
restrictions regarding the minimum or maximum length of the film or the type of recording
device.
Part 3 (post-recording) contained six questions (4–9) that involved both a description of
what had happened during the practice session as well as reflections about the outcomes.
Question 4 provided a line for the participant to mark how each participant rated the method
chosen on a continuum between “a variation of what I normally do” and “something very dif-
ferent.” Question 5 provided three lines for descriptions of what the participant was doing, feel-
ing, and thinking while using the strategy during the session. Question 6 asked how effective
and how easy to apply the strategy was in the practice session. A matrix was provided with a
horizontal scale between “difficult to apply” and “easy to apply” and a vertical scale between
“very effective” and “not effective.” Participants were asked to mark one X on the applicable
point in the matrix. Question 7 was meant to further clarify Question 6 and asked in 7a “In
what way was the strategy easy or hard to apply” and in 7b “In what way was the strategy effec-
tive or not effective for improving your performance.” Question 8 was a yes or no question “Can
you see yourself using this strategy or a version of this strategy in your future practice?” and
provided two lines for explanation: 8a “If yes, would you change or adapt it in any way? If so,
how?” and 8b “If no, why not?” Question 9 asked for demographic data – sex, age, years of play-
ing the instrument, and status, providing three options: student, faculty, or working exclusively
as a professional musician.
Participants submitted their data either digitally (email, Dropbox) or as a combination of
paper questionnaires and digital video data on a USB-stick or DVD. The 14 questionnaires and
videos were then independently evaluated by two music psychologists with music training and
performance experience who provided assessments on three dimensions:

1. Overall rating of the approach (from 0 = rote to 10 = far from rote) based upon observa-
tions marked on a continuum between a high frequency of repetition of musical phrases
without a noticeable change of strategy (“rote”), and practice behavior that displayed
continued, flexible experimentation with alterations in performance variables such as
tempo, dynamic, or articulation (“far from rote”).
2. Clarity of strategy (from 0 = unclear to 10 = very obvious) based on a rating of how
practice appeared to be an obvious product of planning (“forethought” in the SRL
model), or appeared to be unclear in intention where no specific goals for the session
were apparent to the observer.
3. Improvement over the course of the practice session (0 = none identifiable to 10 =
highly evident).
4 Musicae Scientiae 00(0)

Table 1.  Problems to be addressed in practice session.

Responses Percent of cases

  N %  
Fluency 9 27.3 64.3
Accuracy 8 24.2 57.1
Technical control 7 21.2 50.0
Musical expression 3 9.1 21.4
Quality of sound 3 9.1 21.4
Other 3 9.1 21.4

Note. Results are in multiple response format, therefore the total number of responses is greater than number of
participants.

Results
When asked to describe the focus of the practice session on a continuum, 66% of responses
indicated “a general issue” compared to “a specific issue.” Most issues were indicated as musical
(71%) rather than technical. Since participants could choose any number of goals, they marked
between one and six issues that they were trying to address at one time, a further demonstra-
tion of diffuse focus (see Table 1). The prevalence of “accuracy” and “technical control” and the
limited mention of “musical expression” and “quality of sound” underscored the concept of
(rote) practice as a means to improve technique rather than hone musicality.
Participant self-evaluations of strategy effectiveness were correlated with rater assessments
taken from practice video footage.2 Strong positive relationships were found between: partici-
pant-rated strategy effectiveness and rater-assessed mindful deliberate/ intentional/ “far from
rote” practice3 (r = .66, p = .01) and degree of progress (r = .59, p = .03); as well as rater-assessed
degree of progress and deliberate/ intentional/ “far from rote” practice (r = .95, p < .001).

Discussion
We view the self-regulation learning approach as an important advance on the deliberate prac-
tice literature (Platz et al., 2014) because it provides a framework that clarifies the behavioral,
cognitive, and motivational resources needing to be applied for efficient and effective learning
at all levels. Using components of self-regulated learning, we utilized a written questionnaire
and video recording to gather data on musicians’ practice goals, choice of strategies, and imple-
mentation of intentions. The findings of this exploratory study suggest that the musicians who
participated lack appropriate strategies for all three self-regulated learning stages: forethought,
assessment, and self-reflection, despite their years of training. The incidental remarks of the par-
ticipants (“filming myself was amazing: I don’t usually practice with that much concentra-
tion”), and their multiple responses to the question “What is the problem, for which this practice
session will attempt to find a solution?” point towards vague intentions and inefficient use of
time in everyday practice. An emphasis on control and correctness, as evidenced by the partici-
pants’ choices of goals, suggests that technical practice may be absorbing energy that could be
better invested in sound quality and musical interpretation.
Breaking any cycle of less than optimal practice methods requires the adoption of new strat-
egies that augment or replace old habits. To do this one must self-regulate, by identifying habit-
ual patterns of behavior and then actively working to modify these routines (McPherson et al.,
Mornell et al. 5

2017; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2011). This study supports the three-phase self-regulated
learning model suggested by Zimmerman (2011) by providing preliminary evidence for the
efficacy of a short protocol that encourages musicians to improve practice outcomes through
self-regulated skills in practice planning and observation for proactive learning and enhanced
performance.
The musicians’ inability to determine when they were learning, even by those who were actu-
ally making progress, is a finding worthy of serious consideration. Without the ability to detect an
increase in competence, one of the major motivational components of Self-Determination Theory
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000), practice is likely to leave learners frustrated or demoti-
vated. Setting short-term practice goals (“forethought”) to encourage skills that aid focused atten-
tion and willpower on the task being performed (“performance”) in order to facilitate feelings of
satisfaction at the end of the session and motivation to choose creative strategies for the next day’s
practice (“self-reflection”) are components of self-regulated learning that would be beneficial in
music education. Our hope is that the use of this type of protocol will encourage musicians to
engage in more dynamic, rewarding, and satisfying practice.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the State of Bavaria for their financial support in the form of a travel grant (“Bayerisches
Förderprogramm zur Anbahnung internationaler Forschungskooperationen”) and the participants of the
study.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.

Notes
1. The full protocol is available from the first author in both English and German.
2. Interrater reliability was high with intraclass correlations (2,2) = .97–.99, p < .001. For the correla-
tions, rater assessments were averaged into one variable. Pearson correlations were used as assump-
tions of normality were met.
3. To include concepts from “deliberate practice” as defined by Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer
(1993), as well as the “desirable difficulties” identified by Bjork and Bjork (2014), we refrained in this
preliminary study from using one term for this category.

References
Abushanab, B., & Bishara, A. J. (2013). Memory and metacognition for piano melodies: Illusory advan-
tages of fixed- over random-order practice. Memory and Cognition, 41, 928–937.
Altenmüller, E. (2006). Hirnphysiologische Grundlagen des Übens [The brain physiological foundation of
practice]. In U. Mahlert (Ed.), Handbuch Üben (pp. 47–66). Mainz, Germany: Schott.
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable dif-
ficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbach & J. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world:
Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (2nd ed., pp. 59–68). New York, NY: Worth.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391–394.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition
of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
6 Musicae Scientiae 00(0)

McPherson, G. E., Osborne, M. S., Evans, P., & Miksza, P. (2017). Applying self-regulated learning
microanalysis to study musicians’ practice. Psychology of Music. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0305735617731614
McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Self-regulation of musical learning: A social cognitive
perspective on developing performance skills. In R. Colwell & P. R. Webster (Eds.), MENC handbook
of research on music learning (Vol. 2: Applications, pp. 130–175). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Mornell, A. (2009). Antagonists or allies? Informal learning vs. deliberate practice: Defining pathways to
musical expertise. In P. Röbke & N. Ardila-Mantilla (Eds.), Vom wilden Lernen. Muszieren lernen – auch
außerhalb von Schule und Unterricht (pp. 79–98). Mainz, Germany: Schott.
Papageorgi, I., & Kopiez, R. (2012). Psychological and physiological aspects of learning to perform. In G.
E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 731–751). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Platz, F., Kopiez, R., Lehmann, A. C., & Wolf, A. (2014). The influence of deliberate practice on musical
achievement: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(646). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00646
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(4), 907–912.
Wrigley, W. J., & Emmerson, S. B. (2011). Ecological development and validation of a music performance
rating scale for five instrument families. Psychology of Music, 41, 97–118.
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention
for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382–
1414.
Yan, V. X., Thai, K.-P., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated learning: Do they
vary with mindset? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 140–152.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance.
In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp.
49–64). New York, NY: Routledge.